[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp226.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Forgotten Issue: Distributional Effects of Day Care Subsidies in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Michaela Kreyenfeld
  • C. Katharina Spieß
  • Gert G. Wagner
Abstract
In general child care subsidies are widely accepted as a means to create equal chances for mothers in the labour market as well as for children. Although there is a general consensus that the use of child care should be publicly supported, there is no consensus on how this should be done. Moreover, there is little knowledge on the distributional effects of child care subsidies. In order to assess whether public expenditures are targeted efficiently, it is, however, vital to know which social groups profit most from the public expenditures on children's day care and if tax-payers money is spent effectively. In Germany, as in other European countries, child care subsidies are mainly provided 'in-kind'. Local communities and NPOs provide child care slots for children, which are - except for a small fee - free of charge. In this study we estimate the distributional effects of state funded child day care in Germany using microdata of households and data on the expenditure of public funded child care. Major results are that child care subsidies only carry modest redistributional effects. In the first place, it is the middle income range that profits from the public provision of children's day care. This contradicts common public policy recommendations, which state that low income families should be the first target of child care subsidies. In westlichen Industrienationen besteht heute im allgemeinen ein Konsens darüber, dass die Betreuung in Kindertageseinrichtungen öffentlich subventioniert werden sollte. Weniger Klarheit besteht jedoch über die verteilungspolitischen Effekte der öffentlichen Förderung von Kinderbetreuung. Eine solche Unkenntnis über die Verteilungseffekte der öffentlichen Förderung von Kinderbetreuung kann jedoch dazu führen, dass Einkommensgruppen öffentliche Mittel in Anspruch nehmen, die dieser Gelder nicht bedürfen. Wie in einigen anderen europäischen Staaten werden auch in Deutschland bestimmte Anbieter von Kindertageseinrichtungen öffentlich gefördert bzw. die Kommunen betreiben selbst Kindertageseinrichtungen. Damit kommen den Eltern, deren Kinder Kindertageseinrichtungen besuchen, indirekt öffentliche Gelder zu, gleichwohl sie über Elternbeiträge einen geringen Teil der Kosten selbst abdecken. In dieser Studie untersuchen wir die distributiven Effekte der Förderung von Kindertageseinrichtungen in Deutschland, indem wir Mikrodaten auf Haushaltsebene mit Informationen über die öffentlichen Ausgaben im Bereich von Kindertageseinrichtungen kombinieren. Ein wichtiges Ergebnis der Analyse ist, dass über die gegenwärtige "Anbieter-Förderung" nur sehr geringe Umverteilungswirkungen erzielt werden. Vorrangig kommen die Subventionen im Bereich der Kinderbetreuung mittleren Einkommensgruppen zugute, was dem politischen und gesellschaftlichen Ziel, im Kindertagesstättenbereich insbesondere Kinder aus unteren Einkommensgruppen zu fördern, widerspricht.

Suggested Citation

  • Michaela Kreyenfeld & C. Katharina Spieß & Gert G. Wagner, 2000. "A Forgotten Issue: Distributional Effects of Day Care Subsidies in Germany," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 226, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp226
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.38545.de/dp226.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katharina Spieß, 1997. "American and German Mother's Child Care Choice: Does Policy Matter?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 66(1), pages 125-135.
    2. Alan Duncan & Chris Giles, 1996. "Should we subsidise childcare, and if so, how?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 39-62, August.
    3. David Blau, 2003. "Child Care Subsidy Programs," NBER Chapters, in: Means-Tested Transfer Programs in the United States, pages 443-516, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Deborah Schofield & Josh Polette & Alexis Hardin, 1999. "Australia's Child Care Subsidies: A Distributional Analysis," Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, vol. 2(1), June.
    5. Siv Gustafsson & Frank Stafford, 1992. "Child Care Subsidies and Labor Supply in Sweden," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 27(1), pages 204-230.
    6. Karsten Hank & Michaela R. Kreyenfeld, 2000. "Does the availability of childcare influence the employment of mothers? Findings from western Germany," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2000-003, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    7. Karsten Hank & Katja Tillmann & Gert G. Wagner, 2001. "Außerhäusliche Kinderbetreuung in Ostdeutschland vor und nach der Wiedervereinigung. Ein Vergleich mit Westdeutschland in den Jahren 1990-1999," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2001-003, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. World Bank, 2007. "Chile - County Gender Assessment : Expanding Women's Work Choices to Enhance Chile's Economic Potential," World Bank Publications - Reports 7639, The World Bank Group.
    2. Collischon, Matthias & Kühnle, Daniel & Oberfichtner, Michael, 2020. "Cash-For-Care, or Caring for Cash? The Effects of a Home Care Subsidy on Maternal Employment, Childcare Choices, and Children's Development," IZA Discussion Papers 13271, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Colm Harmon & Claire Finn & Arnaud Chevalier & Tarja Viitanen, 2006. "The economics of early childhood care and education : technical research paper for the National Economic and Social Forum," Open Access publications 10197/671, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    4. Marcus Dittrich & Wolfgang Gerstenberger & Beate Henschel & Gunther Markwardt & Carsten Pohl & Heinz Schmalholz & Marcel Thum, 2004. "Demographische Entwicklung im Freistaat Sachsen : Analyse und Strategien zum Bevölkerungsrückgang auf dem Arbeitsmarkt ; Gutachten im Auftrag der Sächsischen Staatskanzlei," ifo Dresden Studien, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 36, May.
    5. Joris Ghysels & Wim Van Lancker, 2010. "The unequal benefits of family activation: an analysis of the social distribution of family policy among families with young children," Working Papers 1008, Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp.
    6. Eiko Kenjoh, 2005. "New Mothers’ Employment and Public Policy in the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Japan," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 19(s1), pages 5-49, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Müller, Kai-Uwe & Wrohlich, Katharina, 2020. "Does subsidized care for toddlers increase maternal labor supply? Evidence from a large-scale expansion of early childcare," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    2. Colm Harmon & Claire Finn & Arnaud Chevalier & Tarja Viitanen, 2006. "The economics of early childhood care and education : technical research paper for the National Economic and Social Forum," Open Access publications 10197/671, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    3. Maria-Isabel Farfan-Portet & Vincent Lorant & Francesca Petrella, 2011. "Access to Childcare Services: The Role of Demand and Supply-Side Policies," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 30(2), pages 165-183, April.
    4. Ghazala Naz, 2004. "The impact of cash-benefit reform on parents’ labour force participation," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 369-383, June.
    5. Wrohlich, Katharina, 2006. "Labor Supply and Child Care Choices in a Rationed Child Care Market," IZA Discussion Papers 2053, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Junyi Zhang & Lili Xu & Akimasa Fujiwara, 2012. "Developing an integrated scobit-based activity participation and time allocation model to explore influence of childcare on women’s time use behaviour," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 125-149, January.
    7. Christian Dudel, 2009. "The Demographic Dilemma: Fertility, Female Labor Force Participation and Future Growth in Germany 2007-2060," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 158, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    8. Arnstein Aassve & Trude Lappegård, 2009. "Childcare Cash Benefits and Fertility Timing in Norway," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 25(1), pages 67-88, February.
    9. Datta Gupta, Nabanita & Smith, Nina & Verner, Mette, 2006. "Child Care and Parental Leave in the Nordic Countries: A Model to Aspire to?," IZA Discussion Papers 2014, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Anne Gauthier, 2007. "The impact of family policies on fertility in industrialized countries: a review of the literature," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 26(3), pages 323-346, June.
    11. Julia Bock-Schappelwein & Rainer Eppel & Ulrike Famira-Mühlberger, 2009. "Sozialpolitik als Produktivkraft," WIFO Monatsberichte (monthly reports), WIFO, vol. 82(11), pages 845-857, November.
    12. Helmut Rainer & Stefan Bauernschuster & Wolfgang Auer & Natalia Danzer & Mine Hancioglu & Bastian Hartmann & Timo Hener & Christian Holzner & Notburga Ott & Janina Reinkowski & Martin Werding, 2013. "Kinderbetreuung," ifo Forschungsberichte, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 59, September.
    13. Karsten Hank & Michaela R. Kreyenfeld, 2001. "Childcare and fertility in (western) Germany," MPIDR Working Papers WP-2001-019, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany.
    14. Trude Lappegård, 2010. "Family Policies and Fertility in Norway," European Journal of Population, Springer;European Association for Population Studies, vol. 26(1), pages 99-116, February.
    15. Chikako Yamauchi, 2010. "The availability of child care centers, perceived search costs and parental life satisfaction," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 231-253, June.
    16. Collischon, Matthias & Kühnle, Daniel & Oberfichtner, Michael, 2020. "Cash-For-Care, or Caring for Cash? The Effects of a Home Care Subsidy on Maternal Employment, Childcare Choices, and Children's Development," IZA Discussion Papers 13271, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Trude Lappegård, 2008. "Family Policies and Fertility: Parents' Parental Leave Use, Childcare Availability, the Introduction of Childcare Cash Benefit and Continued Childbearing in Norway," Discussion Papers 564, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    18. Del Boca, Daniela & Locatelli, Marilena & Vuri, Daniela, 2004. "Child Care Choices by Italian Households," IZA Discussion Papers 983, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Rachel Connelly & Jean Kimmel, 2003. "The Effect of Child Care Costs on the Employment and Welfare Recipiency of Single Mothers," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 69(3), pages 498-519, January.
    20. Marit Rønsen, 2009. "Long‐term Effects of Cash for Childcare on Mothers' Labour Supply," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 23(3), pages 507-533, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Child day care; child care subsidies; distributional effects; social policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D1 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior
    • D3 - Microeconomics - - Distribution
    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp226. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.